Note

The so-called “Sumerian Question” as to the genuine linguistic character of the ancient Non-Semitic Babylonian texts has agitated the Assyriological world for more than twenty years. The new Sumerian matter from the monuments which is constantly coming to hand demands, in the interest of all those who can look upon this discussion with impartial eyes, a most rigid and unprejudiced examination. Dr. Vanderburgh in the following monograph has adhered to the views expounded in my “Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon” (J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905-1907), that the so-called Sumerian was originally a Non-Semitic agglutinative language which, in the course of many centuries of Semitic influences, became so incrusted with Semiticisms, most of them the result of a very gradual development of the earlier foreign sacred speech of the priests, that it is really not surprising to find the theory that Sumerian was merely a Semitic cryptography set forth and vigorously upheld by so eminent a scholar as Professor Halévy (MSL., pp. VIII, IX).

The study of the more ancient Non-Semitic texts, more particularly of the Sumerian unilingual hymns, cannot fail to shed additional light on the nature of this peculiar idiom, besides furnishing a valuable addition to the study of the Babylonian religious system.

The texts of the hymns in Vol. XV. of the Brit. Mus. Cun. Texts are not always in good condition and present many difficulties, a solution of some of which, it is hoped, has been suggested in this work with at least approximate correctness.

John Dyneley Prince

Columbia University

October 1st, 1907

To the Rev. Edward Judson, D. D., in recognition of his friendship to the author and of his interest in Oriental studies

Preface

Vol. XV. of the “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, printed by order of the Trustees”, was published in 1902. Plates 7-30 of this valuable volume contain hymns addressed to Bêl, Nergal, Adad, Sin, Tammuz, Bau and Ningirgilu. Of these, besides the translations given in the present work, the following have been translated and commented on; viz., J. Dyneley Prince, Jour. Amer. Or. Soc., xxviii, pp. 168-182, a hymn to Nergal (Pl. 14); and a hymn to Sin (also rendered and explained in this thesis) by E. Guthrie Perry, in Hymnen und Gebete an Sin (Pl. 17). In press at present are also translations by J. D. Prince, a hymn to Bau, Vol. XV. Pl. 22 in the Harper Memorial Volume (Chicago); and, by the same author, a hymn to Ningirgilu, Vol. XV. Pl. 23, in the Paul Haupt Collection to appear in 1908.

All these hymns in Plates 7-30 stand by themselves as distinct from anything hitherto published. They are unilingual, a fact indicating that they are very ancient and furthermore adding materially to the difficulty of their translation. This Thesis ventures a transliteration, translation and commentary of four of the hymns which are peculiarly difficult owing to their unilingual Non-Semitic character. Of the history of the tablets in question, which are all in the Old Babylonian character, we have no information. They must tell their own story.

The writer of this Thesis wishes to acknowledge with much appreciation the aid given him by Dr. John Dyneley Prince, Professor of Semitic Languages in Columbia University, in the preparation of this work.

New York, Oct. 1st, 1907

F. A. Vanderburgh

Introduction

The gods honored in the hymns treated in the following Thesis are Bêl, Sin (Nannar), Adad (Ramman) and Tammuz, all deities of the old Babylonian pantheon, representing different phases of personality and force, conceived of as incorporated in nature and as affecting the destinies of men. These gods are severally designated in the hymns as follows:

The attributes and deeds belonging to these divinities are adduced from a wide range of literature, beginning with the royal inscriptions of the pre-dynastic periods and ending with the inscriptions of the monarchs of the later Babylonian empire. In fact, the building inscriptions of the Babylonians, the war inscriptions of the Assyrians, the legendary literature, the incantations, as well as the religious collections, particularly the hymns, afford us many descriptions, of greater or less length, of all the Babylonian gods.

To aid the student in understanding better the character of the four gods whose hymns have been translated in the following Thesis, I here give a brief descriptive sketch of each of the deities whose praises were sung in the documents which I have chosen to render.

1. Bêl

Bêl was the most ancient of all Babylonian gods and was a popular deity through the historic rise and fall of several Babylonian states, when no other god received prominent recognition. When En-šag-kušanna, lord of Kêngi, subdued the city of Kîš in the north of Babylonia, he brought the spoil of his victory to Bêl. “To Bêl (En-lil), king of the lands, En-šag-kušanna, lord of Kêngi, the spoil 2 of Kîš, wicked of heart, he presented.”[1] Urukagina, king of Lagaš, built a temple to Ningirsu, the god of Girsu, but he, in honoring Ningirsu as the hero of Bêl, was really honoring Bêl. “For Ningirsu, the hero of Bêl, Urukagina, king of Širpurla, his house he built.”[2] Eannatum, who was patesi of Lagaš and made himself king of Kîš, calls himself the chosen of Bêl, as follows: “Eannatum, patesi of Širpurla, chosen of Bêl.”[3] Entemena, who is called in the Vase of Silver, “son of Enanatum”,[4] and who probably was the nephew of Eannatum, introduces his fine Cone Inscription with these words: “Bêl, king of the lands, father of the gods.”[5]

He also claims in the same inscription to derive the right to reign from Bêl: “Entemena, patesi of Širpurla, to whom a sceptre is given by Bêl.”[6] Entemena’s Cone also gives us information about Mesilim. It speaks of Mesilim as “king of Kîš.”[7] In describing the victory of Mesilim over the Gišbanites, a people located apparently not very far from Kîš, Entemena tells us that the victory was effected by the command of Bêl. “Upon the command of Bêl a scourge he (Mesilim) brought over them (the Gišbanites); the dead in a field of the land he buried.”[8] For map showing supposed location of Gišban, see SSO. p. 158. Lugalzaggisi, a usurper from the north, making himself master of the world in all directions and setting up a throne at Erech, in his inscription of 132 lines, freely recognizes the favor of Bêl. “Bêl, king of the lands, to Lugalzaggisi, king of Erech, the kingship of the world did give.”[9] In this period preceding Sargon I., Šamaš seems to have a distinct place in the religious world, but he does not receive the attention

that Bêl receives. He is particularly mentioned in one inscription; viz., in the Stèle des Vautours, where he is spoken of as “Šamaš, the king who dispenses splendour.”[10]

The date of these early Babylonian rulers, of course, is, as yet, not accurately determined. The relative age of each is made out chiefly from palaeographic evidences (see EBH. p. 8, for example), supplemented with the attempt at fitting into one harmonious whole the events which the inscriptions of these rulers divulge. Then the whole schedule is crowded backward or forward or internally changed from time to time as new evidence is gathered for or against the testimony of Nabonidus (555-538 B. C.) who, when he discovered the tablet of Narâm-Sin, declared that he was gazing on that which no eyes had beheld for thirty-two hundred years. Nabonidus says: “I dug to a depth of eighteen cubits, and the foundation of Narâm-Sin, the son of Sargon, which for thirty-two hundred years no king that had preceded me had discovered, Šamaš, the great Lord of E-barra, permitted me, even me, to behold.”[11] On the supposed relation of these kings to Narâm-Sin, the rulers En-šag-kušanna, a king of the south, Urukagina, of Lagaš,

and Mesilim, a king ruling at Kîš, are placed along about the date of 4500 B. C., while Eannatum, Enannatum and Entemena, successive rulers at Lagaš, are placed near the date of 4200 B. C. Lugalzaggisi of Erech is placed at 4000 B. C. It may be stated here that the date of Sargon I. as 3800 B. C. is obtained by adding to 3200 the date of the reign of Nabonidus as 550 years B. C. and also the length of the reign of Sargon I. as 50 years.

The seat of Bêl’s cult was Nippur, a city lying between the Euphrates and Tigris, a little below Babylon, and located, as it were, in the midway favorable to receiving homage from kings of either the north or the south of Babylonia. We find it mentioned as early as the time of Entemena, who in one of his inscriptions, in speaking of something presented to Bêl, says: “To Bêl of Nippur by Entemena it was presented”.[12] In the bilingual legend of the Creation, Nippur seems to be regarded as a very old city. It is placed at the head of the list of three that are mentioned as ancient cities of Babylonia. “Nippur was not made; E-kur was not built. Erech was not made; E-anna was not built. The abyss was not made; Eridu was not built.”[13] Nippur evidently is older than the worship of Bêl and the conception of Bêl is older than the first king of whom we have mention; viz., En-šag-kušanna, who is placed at 4500 B. C.

At Nippur was located Bêl’s great temple which was commonly called E-kur, house of the mountain, a name particularly descriptive of the shrine of Bêl resting on the top of the mountain-like ziggurrat. Sargon I. calls himself the builder of Bêl’s temple at Nippur, and Narâm-Sin, the son of Sargon, also calls himself the builder of Bêl’s temple. Sargon’s language, which we take from a door-socket found at Nippur, is: “Šargani-šar-âli, son of Itti-Bêl, the mighty king of Agade, builder of E-kur, temple of Bêl in Nippur”.[14] The language of Narâm-Sin from a brick stamp found at Nippur is: “Narâm-Sin, builder of the temple of Bêl”.[15] Neither Sargon nor his son meant that he was the original builder of E-kur. They were simply repairers of the temple, like many other kings. Many kings down to the last king of the last empire took much pride in rebuilding temples. There must have been a temple at Nippur when En-šag-kušanna presented the spoil of Kîš to Bêl. Excavations at Nippur show that, as there are great deposits of

debris above the temple pavements made by Sargon and his son, so beneath these pavements there is a further great layer of debris, proving that the founding of E-kur must reach far back into the darkness of pre-historic antiquity. Sargon’s bricks were the first to bear a stamp which we may consider to imply a date, but they were not the first bricks laid.

The ziggurrat which Ur-Gur, an early king of Ur, built is the first of which we have definite knowledge. We know something of the pavement that Sargon I. and Narâm-Sin built, but of the character of the buildings that might have rested on this pavement we have no information. Ur-Gur leveled the ground and built a new platform, 8 feet high and 100 by 170 feet in area with a ziggurrat consisting of three stages. Some of the facings of his structure were made of burnt brick, bearing the inscription of Ur-Gur (see N. II, 124). The greatest temple Nippur ever had was built by an Assyrian king; viz., Ašurbânipal. The structure covered a larger surface than any before it. The walls, instead of being plain, were ornamented with square half columns. The lower terrace was faced with baked brick, stamped with an inscription in which the ziggurrat is dedicated to Bêl, the lord of the lands, by Ašurbânipal, the mighty king, the king of the four quarters of the earth, the builder of E-kur (see N. II, 126).

E-kur, the temple of Bêl at Nippur, as restored on the basis of the discoveries of the University of Pennsylvania Exploration Fund, consists of two courts, an outer and an inner court. Within 5 the inner court stands the ziggurrat, rising to a tower of three or four stages which the most devout pilgrims might perhaps ascend. At the top is an enclosed shrine in which is a statue of Bêl. Here Bêl and his consort, Bêlit, for Babylonian gods maintain family relations like human beings, are supposed to dwell. In figurines Bêl appears as an old man, dressed in royal robes, generally carrying a thunder-bolt in his hand (see N. II, 128). By the side of the ziggurrat stands a temple for the use of the priests. We may assume on the whole, no doubt, that the assembly of pilgrims was confined chiefly to the outer court (see EBL. 470).

Bêl was at first a local deity, but as the circumference of the political territory of which Nippur was the religious centre was enlarged, so Bêl’s cult was extended. Other cities included in the same political domain with Nippur, recognized Bêl as lord. Bêl was a sort of war god. Kings rivaled one another in courting his favor. The victorious king attributed his success to Bêl and brought the spoil to Bêl. The king of the south, whether of Lagaš, Erech or Ur, and the king of the north, whether of Kîš or Agade, always went to Nippur to celebrate his victory. In this way Bêl’s lordship came to be recognized as extending over all Babylonia and finally over Assyria. Ḥammurabi, king at Babylon, 2300 B. C., recognized “Bêl as lord of heaven and earth, who determines the destiny of the land”,[16] and Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1100 B. C.), the first great Assyrian conqueror, called Bêl “the father of the gods and Bêl of the lands”,[17] and speaks of himself as “appointed to dominion over the country of Bêl”.[18]

The Semitic appropriation of En-lil involved some transformation in the conception of Bêl. Not to refer to Palestine, there were three Bêls; the Sumerian Bêl, the Semitic Bêl and the new Bêl or Marduk, who, however, was really a different god. The Babylonian Bêl, either in the mind of the Sumerian, of the Babylonian or of the Assyrian, always had his seat at Nippur.

Under Semitic influence Bêl became lord of the world. He was one in the hierarchy of three who ruled the universe; viz., Anu, the lord of the heavens, Bêl, the lord of the earth, and Ea, the lord of the deep. The Sumerian name, En-lil, made Bêl the “lord of fulness”. The Semitic name Bêl emphasized the fact of his lordship, and the name of his temple, E-kur, “house of the mountain”, marked out the scope of his lordship. The earth was conceived 6 of as a mountain resting on the abyss, and the temple with its ziggurrat was built to rise up like a mountain out of the deep. The people could stand in the court of the temple at Nippur and say of the mountain-like structure:

“O great mountain of Bêl, O airy mountain,

Whose summit reaches heaven,

Whose foundation in the shining deep is firmly laid,

On the land like a mighty bull lying,

With gleaming horns like the rays of the rising sun,

Like the stars of heaven that are filled with lustre!”[19]

When Babylon became the chief city of all Babylonia, it was natural that its god should be regarded as supreme. It was at this point that political lordship seemed to pass from the old Bêl to the new, namely to Marduk. Ḥammurabi, one of the early kings at Babylon, speaks of Bêl as voluntarily transferring his power to Marduk. In the Assyrian legend of the Creation this transfer is dramatically enacted. The task of overcoming the monster Tiâmat naturally belonged to Bêl. But Marduk, the youthful god of Eridu, the son of Ea, was urged to attempt the feat. When he had slain the monster, there was joy among the gods. They vied with each other in bestowing honor on the victor. Finally Bêl steps forward and confers an honor also. He bestowed on Marduk his own title with these words: “Father Bêl calls Marduk the lord of the world.”[20] Marduk, therefore, is sometimes called the new Bêl in distinction from En-lil, the old Bêl.

The idea of origins is apparently not very fully elaborated in Babylonian literature. For instance, the Babylonians did not come so near to the idea of creation ex nihilo as the Hebrews. Their cosmogony starts with chaos. The expanse of the heavens appears specked with stars, some of which move with regularity. The moon travels across the expanse according to a prescribed order. Then the Babylonian bilingual account of the Creation gives a short statement of the creation of the land and sea, of man and beast. Generally, however, the divinity that planned and perfected order seems to be far in the background. The bilingual account says:

“Marduk constructed an enclosure before the waters,

He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.

Mankind he created.

Animals of the field, creatures of the field he created.

The Tigris and the Euphrates he made and in place put (them)

By their names joyfully he called them”.[21]

Now Marduk, we know, took the place of Bêl and Bêl handed over his prerogatives to Marduk. In transferring his rights he must have given over also his power to create. If Marduk possessed the power to create in the time of his popularity, Bêl must have had the same power in the days of his glory, before he was succeeded by Marduk. Therefore we are led to the belief that the early Babylonians looked upon Bêl as the creator of animal and human life on earth.

The following hymn may be regarded as embodying a legendary view of Bêl as creator, while the idea of destruction is also incorporated in the hymn:

“Of Bêl, mighty hand,

Who lifts up glory and splendour, day of power.

Fearfulness he establishes.

Lord of DUN.PA.UD.DU.A, mighty hand.

Fearfulness he establishes.

Stormy one, father, mother, creator, mighty hand.

The catch-net he throws over the hostile land.

Lord, great warrior, mighty hand.

A firm house he raises up; the enemy he overthrows.

The shining one, lord of Nippur, mighty hand.

The lord, the life of the land, the massû of heaven and earth.”[22]

2. Sin

Next after Bêl, the moon-god is worthy of consideration, because of the age of his cult, and because of the greatness of its influence in Babylonia. The moon-god had two Sumerian names, 8 two Assyrian names and two great temples. The Sumerian name most often applied to the moon-god is Šis-ki, the particular meaning of which in this case does not seem to be very patent. If the two syllables Šis and ki are taken as nouns, the one is the construct state and the other in the genitive relation, the name means “brother of the land”, that is, “protector of the land”, or “helper of the land”. The other Sumerian name is En-zu, lord of wisdom, the intellectual attribute of wisdom being closely related to the physical property of giving light. While therefore Šis-ki expresses the material relation of the moon to the earth, En-zu seems to state the intellectual relation of the moon-god to the affairs of the earth. The first Assyrian name of the moon-god to be considered is Nannar. The derivation of this name is still in doubt. It

generally occurs in bilingual literature as the Assyrian equivalent of the Sumerian Šis-ki (see IV R. 9, 3-18). Jastrow thinks that the word Nannar is made by the reduplication of nar, “light”, and the assimilation of the first r, Nar + nar = Nannar (see RBA. p. 72). The other Assyrian name, connected with the moon-god more often at Harran than at Ur, is Sin, the sign being EŠ, used also for “thirty”, and is applied to the moon-god as the deity of the month of thirty days. As the cult of the moon-god traveled from Ur to Harran, so the name of Sin traveled even into the peninsula of Arabia and probably became a local name there in the wilderness. The Assyrian kings of the second empire seemed to prefer to call the moon-god by the name Sin, but the Semitic Babylonians called him Nannar.